Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

A 1950’s play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose is set on a very hot afternoon, entirely in one room and is based on a story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a 16-year-old boy, accused to have murdered his own father. As the men argue endlessly over the evidence, the fundamental ideas of achieving a just verdict becomes clear. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly discovering the quality in which integrity is essential to be a member of a jury. This aspect of integrity has been shown through the three characters of Juror 8, Juror 9 and Juror 3. From the very start, Juror 8 announced his perspective of the case and continued to pursue with the same ‘not guilty’ thought throughout the

In Reginald Rose's classic play "12 Angry Men," Juror Number 5 stands out as a character whose journey from uncertainty to confidence reflects the play's exploration of justice and human nature. Set in a tense jury room deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murder, Juror Number 5 initially appears timid and uncertain, but as the story progresses, he finds his voice and plays a crucial role in the quest for truth and justice. At the beginning of the play, Juror Number 5 is introduced as a young man from a similar background to the defendant, giving him a unique perspective on the case. He appears hesitant and deferential, lacking confidence in his ability to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations. This uncertainty is evident

The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose demonstrates how biases can affect jury duty. A bias is a prejudice in favor of a particular group, person, or thing resulting in unfairness. This play gives readers an example of how biases influence the thoughts of many. Each juror is biased in their own way, whether it is race, age, or gender. These bias’ prevent people from seeing the truth to a side of a story. The twelve jurors must determine the fate of the eighteen year old boy without leading their biases in different interpretations of the evidence. Biased stereotypes tend to combine with the tendency to repent information proving evidence. More times than not the ones who are biased do not realize it. They proceed to input their conscience

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

Would you enjoy going to jail for a crime you did not commit? The author for 12 angry men, Reginald Rose, had a purpose for writing this play. His purpose for 12 angry men was to show how the jury system can be effective and ineffective with their flaws. “... it’s so not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”. ( Rose 5 ) juror number eight is showing effectiveness by not going with what all the others have decided but instead wants to talk about the case. Juror number eight is the good about the jury system and how it's necessary to go over the cases no matter what even if they were talked about it in court. However , Throughout the play during juror number three is not willing to listen to what

Bad days are the worst and when one has to wait in a room for an extended period of time to be placed in another room to decide the verdict of someone’s life; bad results are bound to happen. One unfortunate trait of a bad day is heat from either a loud argument or an excruciating hot day in a crowded city. Rational judgment must be based solely on facts and unbiased discussion for justice to prevail in any matter. The time and setting of Reginald Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men” will be used to show how the conditions in the jury room correlate to the jurors’ attitudes but does not ultimately consequent to an irrational verdict.

Indeed, Juror 3 and 8 have individual outlooks on the case, but I believe that even between these two diverse people, there are is one strong similarity, and that would have to be persistency. In the whole play, the strongest collisions of disputes were between Juror 3 and 8. Their conflicting perspectives and powerful determinations were what drove the decision of the fate of the accused. In general, these two jurors have strong point of views on how the boy should be treated and why. Even with this similarity, they still use their persistency in diverse

The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.

Prejudice is like a ghost, it has been haunting the human race since the very beginning. Maddison Hinte investigates the way prejudice affects our society by changing our views of others and the way we treat them. The play ‘12 angry men’ by Reginald Rose discusses that we shouldn 't judge people on their background, on their style, or on their religion, instead we need to focus on what matters most, what’s on the inside. Literature both teaches and encourages us to question the issue of prejudice in today’s society.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his